Introduction: On July 3, 1954, at the initiative of Rochunga Pudaite,the first Hmarpolitical organization, Hmar National Congress (HNC) was formed at the firstever HmarInkhawmpui(Conference) in Parbung, Churachandpur South District, Manipur.[1] The organization decided to demand the creation of a new autonomous ‘Hmar Hills District’ by cutting out and integrating parts of Manipur, Assam, Lushai Hills where the Hmar tribe was in majority and submitted a memorandum to the States Reorganization Commission to this effect.[2]

The demand intensified under the banner of Hmar National Union (HNU) formed in the second Hmar Inkhawmpui at Senvon (Dec. 5-6, 1958) which superceded the HNC. It was mainly out of frustration from the Mizo Union Movement that they sought to form separate Hmar political organization.[3] Why the frustration? The Hmars had hoped to integrate their inhabited areas of Manipur, Cachar and North Cachar Hills of Assam with the proposed Mizo District demanded by the Mizo Union. This did not happen.[4] L. Keivom commented:

“Since the Mizo Union… had accepted autonomous District covering only Lushai Hills, the idea of Mizo Government became a winter dream (probably meaning unrealistic as a winter dream). Ever since, the Hmars in Manipur found it loathsome to identify themselves as Mizo. They also began to despise the ‘Lusei’ dialect…. This bred separatist ethnicism among the Hmars… who began to fight for autonomous district for themselves…”[5]

The Hmars in Mizoram had supported the HNU demand for Hmar Hills District as evident from the sprouting of branches and units of HNU in Sakawrdai, Vaitin, Khawpuor, Palsang, Tinghmun and Mauchar in early 1960s.[6] Against this ‘mainstream’ Hmar politics, the Hmars in Mizoram made two autonomy movements. The first was in 1964-66 called Hmar Regional Movement demanding creation of Autonomous Regional Council in North Mizoram where the Hmars were in majority. The second was the movementlaunched during 1986-1994 by the Hmar People’s Convention (HPC) in demand for Autonomous District Council in North Mizoram where they claimed the Hmar tribe was in majority. Why were such movements launched? Were they ethnic-based or rather regional in intent and substance? My hypothetical argument is that they were primarily movements in reaction to what Samuel Stouffer called ‘Relative Deprivation’[7], real or perceived, and was more regional than purely ethnic. An attempt is made in this paper to analyze the various queries provoked by the movements. We shall try to do so in the light of various documents such as memoranda, representations and press releases of the HPC, official proceedings, orders of government, and interviews of the HPC leaders and other concerned public, and other documents found relevant. The main thrust will be on HPC movement since the Hmar Regional Movement was short lived and did not have much impact.

Brief look into the movements:Hmar Regional Movement (1964-66): With creation of Autonomous Regional Council for the Hmars, in line with those granted to the Pawi (Lai), Lakher (Mara) and the Chakma, as its objective, Hmar Regional Movement was launched in 1964 at Palsang village in north Mizoram.[8] The movementwas mainly fostered by the feeling of neglect by the state government. The President, H. Sapbela recollects:

“During those times trans-Tuisuol[9] region was called the ‘dark north’ (Hmar Thimpui) as a derogatory note, for the region was backward in the field of education, medical establishment, communication and economic, because the Government neglected the region. That was why we thought the creation of autonomous regional administrative setup exclusively for the region necessary.” [10]

The organization decided to submit a memorandum to the Governor. The President went to Aizawl to seek advice from political leaders and educated and senior Hmars who might have deeper understanding of the presentpolitical situation and also Hmar socio-cultural, economic and political plights to be incorporated in the proposed memorandum. He also met Laldenga, President of Mizo National Front (MNF), who strongly advised him to stopthe movement while Mizoram was playing ‘international politics’ (meaning MNF’s fight for independence). The movement faded in vigour due to many difficulties including MNF opposition, and fettered away and the memorandum they submitted remained unpursued.

The movement appeared to be provoked by real or perceived deprivation of their rights from the State government, especially on comparing their socio-political and economic status with other regions, and naturally coveted the Pawi (Lai), Lakher (Mara) and Chakma tribes who were enjoying Autonomous Regional Council. It is not clear if the term ‘Hmar’ in the name of the movement was used to refer to the ethnic Hmar tribesmen. It looks more like that it referred to the geographical ‘north’ (‘hmar’ in Mizo and Hmar) such as was used in the appellation ‘Hmar Thimpui’ meaning ‘dark north’. It might also had been used conveniently to refer to both geographical north as well as the ethnic group since the area has majority Hmar population. The achievement of their goal could have served both their region and the ethnic Hmar people in.

Hmar People’s Convention Movement (1986-1994): The Mizo Accord was signed on June 30, 1986 and brought to an end the 20 long years of Mizo National Front insurgency. Soon after, on July 4, 1986, some Hmar youths gathered at Pu Thangliensung’s residence, Electric Veng, Aizawl, and decided to form Mizoram Hmar Association (MHA), to further the cause of Hmars in cultural fields.[11] At a Special Convention called by the MHA on December 18, 1986, the Association was transformed into a political organization and was named Hmar People’s Convention (HPC). HPC made demands constitutionally first for creation of ‘Hmar Ram’[12] through plebiscite, a homeland for the Hmars in the thickly populated and compact Hmar occupied areas of the whole North East India to enable them to preserve their culture, customs and language. The HPC demand then was more or less the same with the demands of HNC and HNU discussed above.[13] However, per the decision of the meeting of the party Executive Body on May 23, 1987, their demand henceforth confined to creation of ‘Hmar Autonomous District Council’ in Hmar majority area in North Mizoram.[14] Later, they were ‘forced’ to go underground in 1989 following confrontations between the HPC volunteers and Mizoram Armed Police forces in the two-phased peaceful bandhs called by HPC to press their demand. The first gunshot of the series of encounters that had to follow was fired on May 16, 1989 at Moniarkhal. In the exchange of fire on that day, R. Vanlalauva, Sub-Inspector (MAP) and Lalhuoplien and Lienhmingthang (HPC) died on the spot, while one police constable succumbed to his injuries in the hospital later. HPC leaders declared this day – the May 16th – as Martyr’s day[15]. As per official record, a total of 46 persons were killed and 66 injured in the various encounters of the HPC/HVC and MAP. Among those killed were 7 policemen, 22 HPC/HVC militants, and 17 civilians.[16] This was the official record on 31.7.92. The actual figure could be much more. Since negotiations continued from 31.7.90, and cease-fire declared and continued almost without any break till the final signing of the Accord on 27th July, 1994, it is assumed that there were no more killings after this date. The signing of the Accord between HPC and Government of Mizoram on that day brought to an end the eight long years movement. The Accord provided for the setting up of Sinlung Hills Development Council in the area ‘to be specified within the HPC Demand Area of Mizoram…’.[17]

HPC Memoranda examined: It is hoped that starting with examining the memoranda submitted to various government authorities will lead us to a most reasonable analytical conclusion. Our examination for the present purpose, of course, will not be exhaustive due to lack of space.

HPC’s first memorandum dated 21st January, 1987, submitted to the Prime Minister of India, Shri Rajiv Gandhi with a subject – ‘North Eastern (States) Re-organisation’, began with, “We, the Hmar people of Mizoram, Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya and Tripura States …” It was in demand for “creation of ‘Hmar Ram’, a home-land for the Hmars in the thickly populated and compact Hmar occupied areas”.[18] This demand was in line with and similar to earlier Hmar political demands under the banner of HNC and HNU, discussed above. The organization then was possibly not conceived as representing Hmars of Mizoram alone, but all Hmars of North East India.

The party’s executive meeting held on May 23, 1987 decided to confine their demand to creation of Autonomous District Council (ADC) in the Hmar majority are in north Mizoram.[19] From their second memorandum dated October 5, 1987, onwards, the party demanded for creation of ADC inside Mizoram. This memorandum began with, “We, the Hmars in Mizoram, have a distinct culture, traditions and customs and speak a common language called Hmar which is quite different in accent and tune from the Lushai, Pawi, Lakher and Chakma”. The party apparently stood henceforth as representing the Hmars of Mizoram state alone.

Now few crucial questions arise.

1. Why had the HPC from May 23, 1987 onwards departed from earlier Hmar political demand (that is for creation of Hmar Ram or Hmar Hills District in the compact Hmar majority areas of North East India) and confined to demand for creation of ADCinside Mizoram?

2. What is the need for the Hmar people to claim separation from the mainstream Mizo society?

3. It is clear to even casual observer that many Hmars in the state, especially those in the state capital, Aizawl, did not support the HPC separatist politics. Why so?

4. Attempting to answer these questions will take us to our primary query, namely whether Hmar autonomy movements in Mizoram were ethnic based and ethnic provoked, or were they rather regional reaction to real or perceived relative deprivation?

Attempting to answer the first question:The HPC party at its inception appeared to be under the influence of the earlier or mainstream Hmar political aims of uniting the Hmars in North East India under one administrative unit. However, HPC leadership, perhaps after reconsidering their political goals, decided to depart from that goal and confined to demand for ADC inside Mizoram. Was it because they had lost hope on that politics as Malsawma Ralchhun told the present author?[20] Or was it because they had lost trust of HNU leadership? In his circular entitled “Hmar Hnam Ngirhmun le Inhriettirna” (Status of Hmar and Notification), the Commander of Special Squad, HPC, wrote about HNU as follows:

“It worked hard to bring the Hmars to political light. The end, however, was MLA politics. MLA politics alone could have been of some good, but we had to bear for 25 years only to find that that politics was leading into further deterioration of Hmar status”.[21]

Hmingchunghnung, who became the president of HPC from the party’s General Assembly on April 3, 1988, seemed to keep the objective of creation of Hmar Hills District in mind, and said that the ADC in Mizoram, once achieved, could be a launching pad for wider Hmar politics.[22]

Frustration from HNU politics and leadership certainly were in the minds of the HPC leadership as seen above.[23] But when we delve deeper, the HPC memoranda revealed that behind the HPC demand for creation of ADC was regional reaction to real or perceived relative deprivation. This is to say that the HPC leadership felt that their majority area, the so-called ‘Demand Area’ was relatively deprived when they compared it with other areas inhabited by kindred tribes like the Pawi (Lai), Lakher (Mara) and Chakma who were enjoying autonomous Regional Council, and also with the ‘Mizo’ who dominated the state politically, economically and also culturally. Grievances like, “The District Autonomy granted to our brethren, the Pawi, the Lakher and the Chakma is being denied to the Hmars”[24] are pointed out in all their memoranda. They felt entitled to such constitutional safeguards as much as their kindred tribes. Frustration from the Mizo Union movement was not mentioned in all their memoranda except the last one dated March 12, 1992, suggesting that this was not a point provoking the HPC demand for ADC in Mizoram. But the failure of the Mizoram State Government to alleviate the condition of the Hmars in the ‘Demand Area’ was mentioned in many of the in memoranda. For instance, their memorandum of 5th Oct., 1987 stated that, “The coming of Statehood has created new hopes … These hopes and aspirations have however, been belied as the State Government does not take …trouble to promote development of the poor people in the North West of Mizoram”.

There were economic grievances as a region as well. Economic and educational backwardness and lack of good communication system were the expressed grievances of the Hmar people in Mizoram as indicated in the memoranda. The HPC memoranda of 16.03.1988 pointed out that, “road transport and communication are the worst’ in the areas inhabited by them. They also mentioned that, “the Hmars were always left out in all social and economic plans of the state”, which they felt resulted in the Hmars being “subjected to all sorts of social, cultural and political discrimination and economic exploitation at the hands of the more advanced communities’, and longed to be kept “equal with their brethren – the Pawis, the Lakhers and the Chakmas in Mizoram”.[25]

It therefore follows that the HPC movement was primarily concerned with the Hmars in their majority area in Mizoram who had reacted against ‘relative deprivation’ from the state government. Thus, they departed from ‘mainstream’ Hmar political demand for creation of Hmar Ram or Hmar Hills District.

Attempting to answer the second question:From Ethnological, Anthropological, and Linguistic background it can safely be presumed that Hmar and Mizo, and also other kindred tribes like Paite, Lai, Gangte, Zo, Chothe, Anal, Kom, Chiru, Purum, Koireng, Hiroi Lamjang, Hrangkhol, Muolsom, Sakechek, and so on are of the same ancestry. For lack of better term, they may be collectively called Lusei-Kuki-Chin group as did most of earlier writers. From this single ethnic community have emerged not less than 47[26] ethnic groups claiming separate ethnic identity and having developed different dialect and slightly different customs and traditions from the original group. This is a process that may be called Ethnogenic divergence whereby people of same ethnic group divides and separates themselves from the original group, often developing slightly different dialects, customs and practices as against a process called Ethnogenic Interethnic Consolidation whereby several linguistically and culturally kindred ethnic groups merge together and form a new, enlarged community.[27]

As for the Hmars, leaving aside speculations, the first reliable written record which specifically mentions Hmar (written as Mhár) tribe is that of Major J. Shakespear’s translation into Hmar of the parable about the prodigal son from the Bible in 1900. This translation was reproduced by G.A. Grierson (1904) who also mentioned that ‘Mhár’ is also spelt as Hmar’.[28] This tells us that the Hmars had sometime before 1900 developed their own dialect and were either already or on the road to developing as separate ethnic group.

But Hmar distinct ethnic existence is not so secure even after this. Cultural affinity, particularly with the ‘Mizo’[29] and other factors posed a threat at certain points of time. First, Christianity reached Mizoram first (1894), from where it spread to Hmar inhabited areas in southern Manipur and North Mizoram and Cachar and N.C. Hills, Assam, so that Mizo (Lusei) became the medium of worship and instruction in schools and became very popular. The missionaries also advocated having Mizo (Lusei) as a lingua franca among their new converts in their areas of operation in Manipur and Mizoram (then Lushai Hills) for it would facilitate their mission works.[30] Songs composed by the Hmars in the early days of their conversion to Christianity were composed in Mizo (Lusei). Thus Hmar language was likely to die a natural death. If so, the very existence of Hmar as a distinct ethnic tribe would soon follow the language to the grave. But the Gospel Revival in Mizoram of 1906 which spread to Hmar areas in Manipur in 1917 gave the Hmars the urge to worship God in their own language, so that Hmar language and hence Hmar ethnic identity was also revived.[31] Second, The Hmars were very enthusiastic in the Mizo Union movement that they not only launched what had become known as Hmar Boycott Movement in 1946-49 in Manipur,[32] but also rejected the Regional Council offered by Manipur Premier, Priyo Brata Singh in 1949, which, for farsighted Hmars, with the advantage of hindsight, was a political blunder.[33] Had the Mizo Union stood fast on its demand and succeeded in their demand for creation of an enlarged Mizo District which would integrate the Hmar majority areas in southern Manipur, Cachar and North Cachar Hills of Assam under it, the Hmars were likely to bury their ethnic nomenclature and accept Mizo as their identity.[34] The Mizo Union ‘betrayal’ discussed earlier[35] could therefore be considered as a ‘blessing in disguise’ for the Hmars for not only was the Hmar ethnic feeling revived and their separate ethnic political organization formed, but also led to the Hmar tribe being enlisted in the tribal list per Ministry of Home Affairs Order No. 316(A), 1956 thanks to the initiative of Rochunga Pudaite. Ever since the Hmar separate ethnic existence could hardly be questioned.

Their distinct ethnic existence being secured, fear of assimilation with ‘Mizo’ was strongly felt as evident from the HPC memoranda. In all their memoranda the Hmar tribe was claimed to be distinct which they felt lacked government patronage in the State of Mizoram. They expressed the necessity of safeguarding their interest to enable them ‘to keep equal pace with the more advance communities on matters relating to development and advancement’ of their ‘culture, traditions, customs and language which are now on the verge of extinction in Mizoram’, and they strongly felt that unless their interests were protected and their rights and privileges were ensured, they shall soon be ‘assimilated…’.[36] They, therefore, sought the constitutional safeguard of the sixth schedule of the Constitution of India. Condemning the state Government’s deliberate policy of assimilation, their last memorandum mentioned that, “…they are trying to engulf the Hmars’ separate cultural identities by adopting and naturalizing such available to them as their own”.[37] They listed some examples in the same memorandum as follows:

“The traditional shawls of the Hmars like ‘Puonlaisen’, ‘Ngotekher’, ‘Thangsuopuon’ and ‘Hmarâm’ are copied and adopted by the Lushais as their cultural and traditional origin. Not only that, they have also, by changing each title, adopted some cultural dances of the Hmars as their original being such as ‘Hrânglâm’ (in Lushai ‘Sarlamkai’), ‘Fahreltawklâm’ (in Lushai ‘Cherokan’), ‘Khuollam’ (in Lushai ‘Khuallam’), etc. The motive behind this is to make the Hmars’ separate identity is, today, on the verge of extinction”.

Thus, they felt the creation of ADC in the area where they were in the majority necessary so that their socio-cultural identity may be safeguarded, preserved and promoted.

Thus, having been revived ethnically, and feeling being discriminated against and under pressure of assimilation in Mizoram, the Hmars did not only seek separation from mainstream Mizo society, but also felt the need for a constitutional safeguard in the form of ADC provided for in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India.[38]

Attempting to answer the third question: It is clear from even casual observer that many of these Hmars, especially the Hmars in the state capital, Aizawl, did not support the HPC separatist politics. Why so?

This question is partly answered by our argument that the movement was largely provoked by a reaction to relative deprivation. This is not to say that the Hmars outside the Demand area were totally indifferent to the cause of HPC movement. Since ethnicity of the Hmars had been aroused as a result bloodshed and of ethnicity being used as a political tool, many Hmars from even outside the state joined the insurgent group. However, since the movement was largely a regional movement of the Hmars in Mizoram, it failed to touch the sentiment of many Hmars outside the Demand Area so that it may not be wrong to suggest that many only gave ‘lip-support’ to the movement. As for many Hmars in Mizoram, we may consider that there were two categories of Hmars. Lal Dena observed:

“The first are the assimilated Hmars (Hmars who are completely assimilated with the Mizos). What this people know is that they are Hmar, but can no longer speak Hmar. They play a very important role in Mizo society and politics. The other group is the unassimilated Hmars who still speak both Hmar and Mizo language”.[39]

This is a true observation. The first group does not feel the same way as the second group does. The second group felt the need to preserve and protect their separate identity and culture, and also felt the need to promote their areas educationally, economically and politically. The first group does not share this feeling.

Conclusion:One can see from the above discussions that there were elements of ethnicism and regionalism provoking the autonomy movements of the Hmar people in Mizoram. The most rational conclusion would therefore be that the Hmar ethnic group who inhabited a more or less compact area in north Mizoram felt their region being relatively deprived. And since the region, the so-called ‘Demand Area’ has majority Hmar population, ethnicity became a convenient political tool which the HPC leadership adeptly exploited. If the movements were purely ethnic, then they should seek to unite all the Hmar inhabited areas in North East India under one political or administrative unit as did the HNU and the HPC in their first memorandum. Thus, it was primarily a regional movement covered up by ethnicism, since the demanded area was predominantly inhabited by the Hmars. It would therefore, be a safe policy for the man in authority in the state to seek and promote developments of every region not to arouse the feeling of regional discrimination or relative deprivation. And since ethnicism is a strong and volatile force, the idea of peaceful co-existence should serve well the man in authority.